D&D 4E Edition Experience - Did/Do You Play 4th Edition D&D? How Was/Is it?
- Status
the Jester
Legend
I only ever played one session as a pc, but I ran 4e from when the early stuff dropped in Keep on the Shadowfell until we wrapped up my epic game a few months after 5e dropped. I liked it, especially after the game had had a few years to mature, and for me to really get to know it well enough to build it to my liking. Once the monster math was fixed, for example, the game improved 50%. When monster design improved around the time the MM3 and Monster Vault were released, combats became much more fun.
4e really shone in some areas that aren't typically all that great in D&D- specifically, in the way high level play really emphasized the changes to pcs. Someone already mentioned "once a day when you die" abilities, but epic destinies came to really shape the end point of my 4e game. The adventures came to be dominated by pc concerns- one conquered a moon, another took over a layer of Hell, another became conqueror of the world. These things have left deep marks on my setting, and pcs interact with the aftereffects all the time (and rarely, with the epic 4e pcs themselves).
4e really shone in some areas that aren't typically all that great in D&D- specifically, in the way high level play really emphasized the changes to pcs. Someone already mentioned "once a day when you die" abilities, but epic destinies came to really shape the end point of my 4e game. The adventures came to be dominated by pc concerns- one conquered a moon, another took over a layer of Hell, another became conqueror of the world. These things have left deep marks on my setting, and pcs interact with the aftereffects all the time (and rarely, with the epic 4e pcs themselves).
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Same, I had a lot more fun with the D&D board games based on 4e than with 4e itself.
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
4e pulled me back to D&D from C&C, albeit under protest. I picked up the books and hated it. A friend that had moved away was visiting and ran a one-shot using it. I almost didn't give it a chance, but my friends prevailed on me. I enjoyed playing D&D with them, but combat took forever and got very dull when all your daily and encounter powers were used up.
But my group of friends also dug gaming and wanted to keep it going. No one else volunteered to DM, so I did. I at first suggested C&C, but no one bit on that option, so I ended up DMing an edition I didn't really like for about four years. We had a lot of fun with the campaign, but it always felt like rules were always getting in the way. Combat took forever, and some people in the group never really grokked the rules. We were always having to go back and add this or that modifier.
Out of all the editions, 4e is the one I'd be least likely to go back and try again. Sometimes I think about trying to do so, but there are others ahead in the queue for that.
But my group of friends also dug gaming and wanted to keep it going. No one else volunteered to DM, so I did. I at first suggested C&C, but no one bit on that option, so I ended up DMing an edition I didn't really like for about four years. We had a lot of fun with the campaign, but it always felt like rules were always getting in the way. Combat took forever, and some people in the group never really grokked the rules. We were always having to go back and add this or that modifier.
Out of all the editions, 4e is the one I'd be least likely to go back and try again. Sometimes I think about trying to do so, but there are others ahead in the queue for that.
the Jester
Legend
They really were just more splat books and were totally compatible with PH stuff. We had Essentials pcs and PH pcs in the same group, and they were fine.
Essentials stuff was a massive improvement in terms of flavor and differentiating the different classes, though. An Essentials fighter didn't feel like just another spellcaster, which was a complaint many people had about the PH fighter and the power system.
I liked 4e, even though it had its problems (and what edition doesn't?) I've played and DMed it recently (in the past year) and it still holds up for what it is - in my opinion the best balanced and most tactical edition of the game.
It had several things going against it. The marketing was bad (insulting fans). The deviation from the core D&D experience was a pretty big leap (though for me not as great from 3.5 to 4 as 3.0 was from TSR AD&D.) The inaugural published adventures were pretty bad (especially compared to those in 3.0 and 5e) and didn't really showcase the design paradigms of the system.
I could still play it and enjoy the occasional one shot, like a Lair Assault session. For a longer term tactical system, I'd probably go with PF2.
It had several things going against it. The marketing was bad (insulting fans). The deviation from the core D&D experience was a pretty big leap (though for me not as great from 3.5 to 4 as 3.0 was from TSR AD&D.) The inaugural published adventures were pretty bad (especially compared to those in 3.0 and 5e) and didn't really showcase the design paradigms of the system.
I could still play it and enjoy the occasional one shot, like a Lair Assault session. For a longer term tactical system, I'd probably go with PF2.
I started with basic D&D (back when there was just the basic and expert boxes), then moved to AD&D fairly quickly (within a year). We played that for a little while, but before v2 came out we'd already switched to other games (RQ and Traveller to start with, then Golden Heroes, Rolemaster, Bushido, and many, many other games.
I didn't look at v2 at all, and when v3 came out, I initially didn't bother. After moving, and joining a new group who were playing v3, I tried it, but it really wasn't for me. The whole D20 thing killed off a lot of my favourite games as they did versions that took over or used up resources that would have been spent on the original game. When 4th ed came out, I initially thought it might be ok, especially since the v3 fans hated it and jumped ship to Pathfinder. Unfortunately when I finally tried 4th ed, I found it to be even worse than 3rd ed and bounced off HARD. It probably didn't help that at the time I was playing more rules light games (which I've tended to stick with), like the aforementioned DW and other PBTA games, as well as lighter games like Heaven and Earth, Trail of Cthulhu, and crunchier games like WFRP v2.
Incidentally, I've only recently returned to D&D in the last year or less, for 5e. It's still more crunchy than I'd like, but it does allow me to run some of the old OSR type campaigns (including newer ones) which I prefer if I'm going to play D&D. it'll always have that retro feel to me compared to newer games, so the older style of campaign fits better. For more modern games, the Year Zero engine does exactly what I want, and far simpler, so that's my go-to system now.
I didn't look at v2 at all, and when v3 came out, I initially didn't bother. After moving, and joining a new group who were playing v3, I tried it, but it really wasn't for me. The whole D20 thing killed off a lot of my favourite games as they did versions that took over or used up resources that would have been spent on the original game. When 4th ed came out, I initially thought it might be ok, especially since the v3 fans hated it and jumped ship to Pathfinder. Unfortunately when I finally tried 4th ed, I found it to be even worse than 3rd ed and bounced off HARD. It probably didn't help that at the time I was playing more rules light games (which I've tended to stick with), like the aforementioned DW and other PBTA games, as well as lighter games like Heaven and Earth, Trail of Cthulhu, and crunchier games like WFRP v2.
Incidentally, I've only recently returned to D&D in the last year or less, for 5e. It's still more crunchy than I'd like, but it does allow me to run some of the old OSR type campaigns (including newer ones) which I prefer if I'm going to play D&D. it'll always have that retro feel to me compared to newer games, so the older style of campaign fits better. For more modern games, the Year Zero engine does exactly what I want, and far simpler, so that's my go-to system now.
ccs
41st lv DM
I played it & decided I didn't like it at all.
I gave it a more than fair chance. I played it for two years. Year one as the DM, year two as just a player. Because, you know, sometimes you find a game that you like to play more one way than another. Nope. I disliked it both ways, though slightly less (wich is still not any type of praise) as a player.
At the core of it I really really dislike the AEDU system.
And I despise piles of errata for games.
I thought it played like a bad board game & a bad miniatures wargame combined. Well guess what? I've got shelves full of better board games, & better minis games.
And I've got better things to do on RPG night than play a bad board game/minis wargame game combo instead of an RPG.
I gave it a more than fair chance. I played it for two years. Year one as the DM, year two as just a player. Because, you know, sometimes you find a game that you like to play more one way than another. Nope. I disliked it both ways, though slightly less (wich is still not any type of praise) as a player.
At the core of it I really really dislike the AEDU system.
And I despise piles of errata for games.
I thought it played like a bad board game & a bad miniatures wargame combined. Well guess what? I've got shelves full of better board games, & better minis games.
And I've got better things to do on RPG night than play a bad board game/minis wargame game combo instead of an RPG.
happyhermit
Adventurer
Never tried harder to like a game, for various reasons, but it's one of my least favorite ttrpgs at this point, for sure.
They tried to make it "feel like D&D" but then made it more symmetrical, more grid-dependent, more formulaic ie; encounter building guidelines and skill challenges, and they minimized/removed a lot of "strategic" elements. With the plethora of tactical minis games out there, I just don't see the point.
Now, obviously a segment of people love it, I still listen to a podcast where they are playing it and having fun. The combat is painful to listen to (4e was not a game suited to live-play IMO) but they are having fun, so I can still enjoy it.
They tried to make it "feel like D&D" but then made it more symmetrical, more grid-dependent, more formulaic ie; encounter building guidelines and skill challenges, and they minimized/removed a lot of "strategic" elements. With the plethora of tactical minis games out there, I just don't see the point.
Now, obviously a segment of people love it, I still listen to a podcast where they are playing it and having fun. The combat is painful to listen to (4e was not a game suited to live-play IMO) but they are having fun, so I can still enjoy it.
I quite enjoyed 4E. It addressed the massive class balance issues of 3E, and the whole system was built around the encounter as the primary unit of resource management, so as DM I was freed from having to design adventures around attrition and restricting PCs' ability to rest. Minions and solo monsters were awesome innovations. If you want really stunning, engaging set-piece battles, 4E delivers them like no other edition.
Of course, you may have noticed that everything I said above was focused on combat. Outside combat, 4E did not shine so well. There were some excellent bits (e.g., ritual spells), some bits that could have been excellent but IMO fell down in implementation (skill challenges), and some bits that... ah... well, let's just say that when you have to invent a 10,000-gp coin because item prices at the top tier of play are so high, I feel strongly that you have Lost The Way. Fortunately it was easy to play with the "no-pluses" variation where the expected item bonuses are just folded into your regular modifiers.
I did find the AEDU structure a bit stifling. I am possibly the only person in the world who was a huge fan of Essentials--I didn't get to play with it for very long since D&D Next was announced not long after, but I loved getting that variety in class design.
Overall: I liked 4E, played it throughout its run, but made the switch to Next/5E without hesitation. Still, I sure do miss that encounter-centric resource model.
Of course, you may have noticed that everything I said above was focused on combat. Outside combat, 4E did not shine so well. There were some excellent bits (e.g., ritual spells), some bits that could have been excellent but IMO fell down in implementation (skill challenges), and some bits that... ah... well, let's just say that when you have to invent a 10,000-gp coin because item prices at the top tier of play are so high, I feel strongly that you have Lost The Way. Fortunately it was easy to play with the "no-pluses" variation where the expected item bonuses are just folded into your regular modifiers.
I did find the AEDU structure a bit stifling. I am possibly the only person in the world who was a huge fan of Essentials--I didn't get to play with it for very long since D&D Next was announced not long after, but I loved getting that variety in class design.
Overall: I liked 4E, played it throughout its run, but made the switch to Next/5E without hesitation. Still, I sure do miss that encounter-centric resource model.
- Status
